Rémy Robert: How did you get involved in the civil rights movement?
Gloria Steinem: As a child, things and opportunities weren’t exactly handed to me. My parents divorced when I was eight, and my mother and I lived together in extreme poverty. She suffered from such depression that, when I was 15, I had to go live with my older sister in Washington, D.C. I ended up at Smith College, one of the nation’s leading women’s colleges. Really, though, things changed for me once I graduated. In 1956, I won a fellowship to study in India for two years. Being there really put things into perspective and made me see that, truly, “Americais an enormous frosted cupcake in the middle of millions of starving people” (“Women’s”). In America, we have such a high standard of living, but we so commonly take advantage of it. In India, life is so much different; the luxury to which we are so accustomed is a lot harder to come by, even on such a basic level as food. That, I’d say, was the first of a chain of events that led me to become involved in civil rights activism. Once I got back to the U.S., I was inspired to pursue a career in journalism.
RR: How did your experiences as a journalist influence your beliefs and stances?
GS: Well, for one of my first gigs, I actually worked in New York as a Playboy bunny. The idea was to get behind the scenes to see the working conditions, wages and treatment of women who do this as their livelihoods. The results were appalling, and, I found, completely reflective of the extreme consumerism to which I became attuned during my time in India. Think for a second about the contrast here: rich men flock to the garish opulence of the Playboy mansion, but the women themselves receive low wages and work long hours, and they must do so under pitiful working conditions. As someone who experienced it firsthand, I became defensive of my rights and those of every other woman, because, while my experience with Playboy was just one instance, I find that women are treated poorly and as inferior individuals across the board.
RR: You’ve already burst onto the scene as a major feminist leader, thanks to your impressive journalistic résumé. As one of the leading activists in the feminist movement, what goals and plans do you have in mind for the future?
GS: I have been writing about women’s rights for a while now: in 1962, I wrote about how women are forced to choose between a career and a husband. I find this outrageous; does a woman not have the mental capacity to balance both if a man does? My involvement with civil rights led me to involvement in politics, and I have also followed the campaigns of Democrats like George McGovern for New York magazine. As a matter of fact, just this year, I became the contributing editor to New York, and I write a column titled “The City Politic” that concerns itself with political issues of the American left. Recently, I attended a meeting in New York for the Redstockings, a women’s liberation group. Though it was originally for a story I was doing, I was moved by some of the women’s horror stories about illegal abortions, and I’ve since been actively rooting for legalized abortion. Overall, my biggest priority right now is to get the word out there. Plans are in the works to take my journalism to the next level with a feminist magazine that will bring into the public eye controversial topics like abortion and domestic violence. There is a dangerous level of complacent ignorance and in our society right now about these issues, and that, I think, must be fixed. In addition, ours is the least participatory democracy in the world, and I aim to change that: when we have been given the opportunity to decide who is in our government, it is nothing less than an atrocity for us to ignore the right to vote. Many people don’t seem to realize that whether or not we vote determines a large part of our own lifestyles. Women can’t just wait around to see legislation that makes abortion a legal practice; they have to vote for representatives who will expedite the process! That actually leads me to another point, which is the gross under-representation of females in the government. If we want balanced contribution of opinions, we need to get some women in there; we have got to tame the machismo with a bit of estrogen! I would love to get an official group going in which women can actively participate in the government.
RR: Fairly recently, the media became a huge fixture in many Americans’ lives. How do you see the media in regards to feminism?
GS: Oh, God, yes; the media is impossible to ignore. Something I find interesting is the fact that marketers have recently begun exploiting and insulting women, simultaneously using them to sell products and bullying them into buying products. Inevitably, in a capitalist society like ours, the media and economy will overlap; however, I simply cannot condone a media that depicts women in such a degrading way simply for the sake of modeling and selling an item. How is it that we as consumers can let them get away with running advertisements that essentially guilt women into purchasing by suggesting that to not do so is to be a bad wife, mother or lady? The douche, for example, has become a popular item fairly recently. This is preposterous and demeaning, and the worst part is that most of my fellow women don’t realize this because they are too busy listening to what the media says. And do you know what the media says? Implicitly, it tells women that they must use douches in order to be satisfactory as wives. The media is entirely counterproductive to my and my contemporaries’ feminist efforts.
RR: How do you define equality?
GS: What a loaded question! To me, equality is a fair and equal distribution of both privileges and obligations. To achieve equality between genders, then, we must eradicate gender roles completely. However, what you must realize is that, just as I’m lobbying as a feminist for a change in our perception of women, I’m also lobbying as a civil rights activist for a change in our perception of the genders as a whole. In my mind, feminism and true gender equality are inextricably linked. Our goal isn’t to establish a society in which women are dominant, powerful and superior, despite what many of our opponents assume; our goal is to soften the sharp and polarizing standards we have for both men and women to ultimately foster a more just and truly more equal society. We don’t aim to wreck the household as we know it, but rather to strengthen it. Take Sweden, for example, where the standard is an equalization of parental responsibility rather than an overwhelming burden on the mother’s shoulders to raise the children and a similar burden on the father’s shoulders to support the family financially. I envision a society were schools will help to break down these “traditional sex roles…; where half the teachers will be men…; where athletic teams will be picked only by strength and skill. Sexually segregated courses like auto mechanics and home economics will be taken by boys and girls together… [and] the white-male-oriented textbooks [will be] integrated and rewritten” (Steinem). Did you know that, in America, a married woman loses her rights to sign a credit agreement, use her maiden name, incorporate a business or live on her own? The frightening truth is that, actually, most people are completely unaware of this. If we institute a kind of compulsory marriage test, similar to a driver’s test, there is a chance that this gaping problem could be alleviated. What I’m trying to say here, Rémy, is that the main goal of feminism is, in fact,egalitarianism, so “if women’s lib wins, perhaps we all do” (Steinem).
RR: What, in your opinion, must we target to achieve this utopian-sounding equality of which you speak?
GS: There are many things in our culture that we allow to linger despite their counter-feminist effects. For starters, religion is a major exponent of sexual repression. By promoting more female participation within the church, we could prevent this from continuing. In literature, too, males and females seem to be pigeonholed into distinct and equally rigid roles. It starts with the picture books our children read: I’m sure you’re familiar with Dick and Jane. Until they are changed, the roles and events depicted in these books or in actual literature will only perpetuate antiquated chauvinistic ideology. Look also at etiquette. How is it that men have come to be expected to lead dances and act chivalrously? Would society not be so much more harmonious if these anachronistic social rules were extended to everyone, so that chivalry became a general act of courtesy between any two people? Even in the ways people dress, there is inadvertent gender segregation. Imagine for one second a society in which women could wear pants. I see you’re wearing a nice blazer: imagine a society in which it wouldn’t be expected to be constantly wrinkle-free. Some people criticize this vision as unrealistic. To that, I ask you to look at the most successful cultures of the past. What do they have in common? Primarily, they all had sexual standards that were lenient and not polarizing. In the highly successful Iroquois Confederacy, there was total equality between sexes, and in many cases, women actually held power.
RR: Thank you, Ms. Steinem.
GS: It’s been a pleasure!
An interview with Glorious Gloria!
Rémy Robert: How did you get involved in the civil rights movement?
Gloria Steinem: As a child, things and opportunities weren’t exactly handed to me. My parents divorced when I was eight, and my mother and I lived together in extreme poverty. She suffered from such depression that, when I was 15, I had to go live with my older sister in Washington, D.C. I ended up at Smith College, one of the nation’s leading women’s colleges. Really, though, things changed for me once I graduated. In 1956, I won a fellowship to study in India for two years. Being there really put things into perspective and made me see that, truly, “America is an enormous frosted cupcake in the middle of millions of starving people” (“Women’s”). In America, we have such a high standard of living, but we so commonly take advantage of it. In India, life is so much different; the luxury to which we are so accustomed is a lot harder to come by, even on such a basic level as food. That, I’d say, was the first of a chain of events that led me to become involved in civil rights activism. Once I got back to the U.S., I was inspired to pursue a career in journalism.
RR: How did your experiences as a journalist influence your beliefs and stances?
GS: Well, for one of my first gigs, I actually worked in New York as a Playboy bunny. The idea was to get behind the scenes to see the working conditions, wages and treatment of women who do this as their livelihoods. The results were appalling, and, I found, completely reflective of the extreme consumerism to which I became attuned during my time in India. Think for a second about the contrast here: rich men flock to the garish opulence of the Playboy mansion, but the women themselves receive low wages and work long hours, and they must do so under pitiful working conditions. As someone who experienced it firsthand, I became defensive of my rights and those of every other woman, because, while my experience with Playboy was just one instance, I find that women are treated poorly and as inferior individuals across the board.
RR: You’ve already burst onto the scene as a major feminist leader, thanks to your impressive journalistic résumé. As one of the leading activists in the feminist movement, what goals and plans do you have in mind for the future?
GS: I have been writing about women’s rights for a while now: in 1962, I wrote about how women are forced to choose between a career and a husband. I find this outrageous; does a woman not have the mental capacity to balance both if a man does? My involvement with civil rights led me to involvement in politics, and I have also followed the campaigns of Democrats like George McGovern for New York magazine. As a matter of fact, just this year, I became the contributing editor to New York, and I write a column titled “The City Politic” that concerns itself with political issues of the American left. Recently, I attended a meeting in New York for the Redstockings, a women’s liberation group. Though it was originally for a story I was doing, I was moved by some of the women’s horror stories about illegal abortions, and I’ve since been actively rooting for legalized abortion. Overall, my biggest priority right now is to get the word out there. Plans are in the works to take my journalism to the next level with a feminist magazine that will bring into the public eye controversial topics like abortion and domestic violence. There is a dangerous level of complacent ignorance and in our society right now about these issues, and that, I think, must be fixed. In addition, ours is the least participatory democracy in the world, and I aim to change that: when we have been given the opportunity to decide who is in our government, it is nothing less than an atrocity for us to ignore the right to vote. Many people don’t seem to realize that whether or not we vote determines a large part of our own lifestyles. Women can’t just wait around to see legislation that makes abortion a legal practice; they have to vote for representatives who will expedite the process! That actually leads me to another point, which is the gross under-representation of females in the government. If we want balanced contribution of opinions, we need to get some women in there; we have got to tame the machismo with a bit of estrogen! I would love to get an official group going in which women can actively participate in the government.
RR: Fairly recently, the media became a huge fixture in many Americans’ lives. How do you see the media in regards to feminism?
GS: Oh, God, yes; the media is impossible to ignore. Something I find interesting is the fact that marketers have recently begun exploiting and insulting women, simultaneously using them to sell products and bullying them into buying products. Inevitably, in a capitalist society like ours, the media and economy will overlap; however, I simply cannot condone a media that depicts women in such a degrading way simply for the sake of modeling and selling an item. How is it that we as consumers can let them get away with running advertisements that essentially guilt women into purchasing by suggesting that to not do so is to be a bad wife, mother or lady? The douche, for example, has become a popular item fairly recently. This is preposterous and demeaning, and the worst part is that most of my fellow women don’t realize this because they are too busy listening to what the media says. And do you know what the media says? Implicitly, it tells women that they must use douches in order to be satisfactory as wives. The media is entirely counterproductive to my and my contemporaries’ feminist efforts.
RR: How do you define equality?
GS: What a loaded question! To me, equality is a fair and equal distribution of both privileges and obligations. To achieve equality between genders, then, we must eradicate gender roles completely. However, what you must realize is that, just as I’m lobbying as a feminist for a change in our perception of women, I’m also lobbying as a civil rights activist for a change in our perception of the genders as a whole. In my mind, feminism and true gender equality are inextricably linked. Our goal isn’t to establish a society in which women are dominant, powerful and superior, despite what many of our opponents assume; our goal is to soften the sharp and polarizing standards we have for both men and women to ultimately foster a more just and truly more equal society. We don’t aim to wreck the household as we know it, but rather to strengthen it. Take Sweden, for example, where the standard is an equalization of parental responsibility rather than an overwhelming burden on the mother’s shoulders to raise the children and a similar burden on the father’s shoulders to support the family financially. I envision a society were schools will help to break down these “traditional sex roles…; where half the teachers will be men…; where athletic teams will be picked only by strength and skill. Sexually segregated courses like auto mechanics and home economics will be taken by boys and girls together… [and] the white-male-oriented textbooks [will be] integrated and rewritten” (Steinem). Did you know that, in America, a married woman loses her rights to sign a credit agreement, use her maiden name, incorporate a business or live on her own? The frightening truth is that, actually, most people are completely unaware of this. If we institute a kind of compulsory marriage test, similar to a driver’s test, there is a chance that this gaping problem could be alleviated. What I’m trying to say here, Rémy, is that the main goal of feminism is, in fact, egalitarianism, so “if women’s lib wins, perhaps we all do” (Steinem).
RR: What, in your opinion, must we target to achieve this utopian-sounding equality of which you speak?
GS: There are many things in our culture that we allow to linger despite their counter-feminist effects. For starters, religion is a major exponent of sexual repression. By promoting more female participation within the church, we could prevent this from continuing. In literature, too, males and females seem to be pigeonholed into distinct and equally rigid roles. It starts with the picture books our children read: I’m sure you’re familiar with Dick and Jane. Until they are changed, the roles and events depicted in these books or in actual literature will only perpetuate antiquated chauvinistic ideology. Look also at etiquette. How is it that men have come to be expected to lead dances and act chivalrously? Would society not be so much more harmonious if these anachronistic social rules were extended to everyone, so that chivalry became a general act of courtesy between any two people? Even in the ways people dress, there is inadvertent gender segregation. Imagine for one second a society in which women could wear pants. I see you’re wearing a nice blazer: imagine a society in which it wouldn’t be expected to be constantly wrinkle-free. Some people criticize this vision as unrealistic. To that, I ask you to look at the most successful cultures of the past. What do they have in common? Primarily, they all had sexual standards that were lenient and not polarizing. In the highly successful Iroquois Confederacy, there was total equality between sexes, and in many cases, women actually held power.
RR: Thank you, Ms. Steinem.
GS: It’s been a pleasure!
Works Cited
"Gloria Steinem." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 3 December 2007. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 8 December 2007. <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gloria_Steinem&oldid=175409925>.
Gorney, Cynthia. "Gloria." Mother Jones. November 1995. The Foundation for Natural Progress. 9 December 2007. <http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/1995/11/gorney.html>.
Hurrelbrinck, Nancy. "Steinem: older and younger feminists need more dialogue." Inside UVA. 2000. The University of Virginia. 8 December 2007. <http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/2000/31/steinem.html>.
"Liberating Women." Time Magazine. 15 June 1970. Time Inc. 11 December 2007. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,909414,00.html?promoid=googlep//>.//
"Ms. magazine." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 23 November 2007. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 7 December 2007. <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ms._magazine&oldid=173199236>.
Steinem, Gloria. "What It Would Be Like if Women Win." Time. 31 August 1970. Time Inc. 10 December, 2007. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,876786-1,00.html>.
"Women’s History – Biographies – Gloria Steinem." UXL Biographies. 2003. Gale Cengage Learning. 7 December 2007. <http://gale.cengage.com/free_resources/whm/bio/steinem_g.htm>.